The Booster benefits launched by the exchange have recently sparked heated discussions in the community. Many people are attracted by the promotions of "zero-cost participation" and "airdrops direct delivery," but there are also voices questioning the true value of such activities. Market observations show that these platform activities are not scams but legitimate user incentive mechanisms; the key lies in how participants rationally approach them.

The risks behind these phenomena are often overlooked. Many participants lose judgment at the words "zero-cost," blindly complete task lists, and ultimately face common outcomes: points not reaching the target, poor performance of the airdrop projects themselves, and a serious mismatch between time invested and returns. This is not a platform trap but a strategic flaw on the part of participants.

How to participate scientifically? The first step is to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of the tasks. Not all tasks are worth doing. High-value tasks usually have two characteristics—substantial points rewards and support for multiple completions. In contrast, tasks with minimal points but lengthy time consumption can be skipped directly. Time management is equally important; attention must be paid to task deadlines to avoid discovering too late that time has run out.

A deeper consideration is the quality screening of airdrop projects. Not all tokens recommended by Booster are worth long-term attention. It is advisable to conduct basic research before participating—factors such as project background, team strength, and market liquidity will influence the final returns. Only then can one shift from passive follow-the-leader to active selection.